A couple of months ago Bangalore Police Commissioner Mr. Shankar Bidari admitted that 53 people died during 2008 in road accidents on the newly widened 30 kms stretch of Bellary Road connecting the city to the new airport. A maximum number of the dead were pedestrians and most were killed since the airport opened in May 2008. The number of injured could easily be 10 times for every death. Many families and their communities have been brutalised but left with little choice.
It is so very easy to anticipate such problems in the design stage and invite local communities to help shape good decisions as the law demands. But it is the disease in our administrative culture to overlook such statutory provisions, disregard alternatives, rubbish people's serious concerns and then look askance when confronted with the terrible consequences of their poor design that is the real culprit. Unfortunately, Courts have been very mild against such lapses.
Road building and widening is a process that has been done for generations now. The collective wisdom of this deep experience has helped shaped scientific standards such as the National Building Code of India and guidelines of Indian Roads Congress, which implementing authorities have to follow. The requirement to consult affected communities in urban planning and infrastructure development is articulated in great detail in municipal laws derived from pre-independence era and the Town and Country Planning Act enacted in 1960s! The latter legislation, in particular, mandates that the wide public in urban areas must be involved at various stages of planning and implementation of projects. But it is these very laws that are violated with impunity when planning and developing urban areas and infrastructure, resulting in the urban crisis that we all suffer today.
It is in this context that Environment Support Group and this author brought a PIL before the High Court of Karnataka arguing that compliance with such progressive statutes was mandatory while widening roads or developing the Metro. Accepting this submission the High Court ruled on 16 March 2009 that implementing agencies must “strictly follow the provisions of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act and the Karnataka Preservation of Trees Act” when widening roads and developing related infrastructure. (Download the interim direction from: http://www.esgindia.org/campaigns/Tree%20felling/Hasire%20Usiru/legal/HC_Road_7107_2008_PIL_160309.rar)
When the PIL was admitted last year (a copy of which can be accessed at: http://www.esgindia.org/campaigns/Tree%20felling/Hasire%20Usiru/legal/PIL_ESG_RoadWidening_Indexed_Final_HC_2008.pdf), the High Court had considered the Petitioners grievance that Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) widening 91 core roads of Bangalore running into a length of over 400 kms. without any compliance with the Town and Country Planning Act. This would unjustly cause the destruction of homes, businesses, offices, schools, colleges, shopping areas, vendor zones, safe pedestrian pathways, and at least 40,000 avenue trees. The loss would be so irreparable and inconceivable that only the Court's restraining hand could help salvage the situation for affected communities and the voiceless trees. BBMP in its defense had argued that if roads were not widened traffic congestion could not be resolved. (A point that has been squarely contested by the current Traffic Commisisoner Mr. Praveen Sood). The Petitioners argue d that traffic congestion could be substantially reduced merely by treating intersections scientifically. In addition, developing safe zones for walking and cycling and providing pubic transport options – especially the very cheap bus based transport – would be the real long lasting solutions. World over, progressive efforts include traffic calming and discouraging cars in core city areas are being actively proposed – but the opposite was being done by BBMP.
The Court considered all these views and observed that authorities should be concerned “not only (about) the felling of trees and the widening of roads to reach the international airport but also such other incidental and related matters which result in the traffic hazards and also in relation to public/private transport, senior citizens, physically handicapped persons, children, ecology, environment and health”. To ensure such considerations were sincerely integrated in projects at the design stage itself, by consulting the wide public, the Court constituted an inter-disciplinary Committee headed by former Environment Secretary Mr. Yellappa Reddy.
The hope that the public would now be involved in decisions and that projects would be developed with sensitivity and in conformance of applicable laws and standards was shortlived The Committee Chair first made meetings out of bounds for the public and under pressure from implementing agencies began to issue suo moto clearance for projects in clear contravention of Court directions. Written protests from several Committee members that implementing agencies were violating the law were trivialised and not one representation of affected communities was even considered.
The Petitioners appealed to the Lok Adalat to arbritrate and on 19 November 2008 the Adalat ordered the Committee to act transparently and formulate recommendations only after hearing all concerned. Despite this direction, the Tree Officer of BBMP, who was also Convenor of the Committee, ordered the felling of all 350 trees on Sheshadri Road even when no recommendation had been formulated by the Committee. The Petitioners were once more compelled to rush to the Adalat for relief.
The Hon'ble Adalat was deeply disturbed by the violation of its orders and observed in its order of 6th January 2009 that little could be done about the tree felling on Sheshadri Road as “...most of the trees are already removed.” On the Petitioners submission, the Adalat returned the matter back to the Court to decide on the issue of non-implementation of the Town and Country Planning Act. It was in this context that the Court ruled on 16 March 2009 that implementing agencies would “strictly follow” provisions of particular Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act and the Karnataka Preservation of Trees Act. This might sound like the Court is stating the obvious – authorities must follow the law. That authorities must be directed by Courts to follow the law else they will not, is a disturbing trend and indicative of a crisis in law.
Meanwhile it is also important to note how brazen officials are in violating even judicial orders evidenced by an order of the Tree Officer of BBMP who within hours of the Court's decision ordered felling of over 90 trees on Palace Road. Even if we consider the Tree Officer had the power to order felling of trees, it is inconceivable how he managed to fulfill norms of tendering out contracts for felling trees and auctioning the wood. History will record this dastardly act as destroying Bangalore's real charm. If only BBMP was sensitive to progressive street design not only could these trees have been saved, but the network of Race Course Road, Palace Road and Sheshadri Road could have been intelligently developed into a cyclists and walkers paradise, and also a zone for smooth traffic flow.
It is pyrrhic relief then that the Chief Minister now confirms he smells a scandal in the widespread felling of avenue trees. (Read: http://www.thehindu.com/2009/07/24/stories/2009072453560400.htm and http://newsrack.in/news/display?ni=213805603b0ecfa96a9529f58381368c%3A8588163) Should he not begin by enquiring why his office did not bring to his attention tens of representations and letters complaining that there was something really wrong with such widespread felling of trees? Shouldn't he have cared about the tens of protests across the city against such felling – covered regularly in newspapers? Should he have waited so long – and that too for an MLA to bring up the issue in the Assembly that cartels are at work to fell trees unnecessarily - when trees were being felled right around his house and office with gay abandon?
The vandal act of felling trees unnecessarily must not go unpunished. At least now, the Chief Minister must follow through on his suspicion and order an enquiry, catch the kingpin behind these cartels (even if s/he is a forest or BBMP official?) and stem the rot in the system. The issue should not merely be that the trees felled were grossly devalued, but to ask if needed to be felled at all.
A good beginning could be made by ensuring that the 16th March High Court order is strictly complied with. Only when the implementation of this judgment becomes everyone's cause can we help shape Bangalore as a healthy, safe, equitable and green city.
Leo F. Saldanha
24 July 2009
No comments:
Post a Comment